Is Isaiah 7:14 exclusively a prophecy of Jesus birth?

Published: 20 December 2011(GMT+10)

Dale H. from United States writes:

iStockphoto

Howdy,

Regarding the prophecy spoken of by Isaiah, chapter 7, verse 14, I have a question
regarding some of the further specifications, mainly verse 16.

Isaiah 7:14–16 (ASV) 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold,
a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15Butter
and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the
land whose two kings thou abhorrest shall be forsaken.

Firstly, I want to acknowledge that I see this prophecy fulfilled as Matthew did,
Matt. 1:22, 23. After reading Dr. Sarfati’s article on the translation of
Isaiah, and the way “virgin” was used, not as a young woman would be
understood before marriage, but a virgin, as a specification, an explicit definition
thereof.

So with that in mind, I thought I’d ask you guys this. I am confused as to
why God would have Isaiah speak this prophecy in the way it has been interpreted
(verse 16) … could this be due to a Hebrew idiom that I would have no way
of knowing? Or is this verse 16 just put in such a way, that someone could rightly
mistake it to mean: Before the Messiah was of the age of discernment, to refuse
evil, and choose the good, the land of the two kingdoms would be forsaken (which
literally it was). It just reads as if the time setting is more local.

The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) used the word
παρθένος (parthenos)—clearly
meaning virgin—about 150 years before Christ, so this indicates that the Jews
understood it to predict a virgin birth

I have debated with others that see this specification as a restriction, of when
the Syrian and Ephraim kingdoms were to be forsaken … meaning … they
had to be forsaken before some virgin born son fulfilled the scripture, during Ahaz’s
time frame … I hope I’m making sense, I’m having difficulty illustrating
this. But nevertheless, those folks want to say this Isaiah prophecy was not “completely”
fulfilled, because the Messiah didn’t come until many years later, ~650 years
later. They will say, there was no virgin birth before the 65 years or so, till
those kingdoms fell. But this assumption is all based on how verse 16 reads in English.
Does it read differently in Hebrew though?

I do not agree that Isaiah was speaking of a child that was to come in their near
future. He was mainly letting Ahaz know that God’s will, will be carried out
regardless if Ahaz trusted God or not, with him, or without him, God’s promise
to David regarding the ruler of Judah being his descendant was going to happen regardless
of what King Ahaz had in mind. He needed God, not the other way around. “Ahaz,
these two kingdoms that have you scared to death, won’t even be around when
the Messiah is born, so trust in God, not in your own means.”

So therefore, if there is some sort of idiom, or some other reason that you guys
have considered, that would lead Isaiah to record verse 16 in such a way that looks
to be limiting when those two kingdoms would fall in relation to a virgin birth,
would you guys give your opinion on the matter? It reads almost like the Messiah
was to be born, (two kingdoms are still standing) then before he’s old enough
to choose good from evil, those two kingdoms (which plotted to remove Ahaz) would
be left forsaken.

King Rezin and King Pekah both died well before Christ was born. So yes, literally,
before Christ was born, and by extension, before he knew to choose good from evil,
those two kingdoms that plotted against Ahaz, were forsaken, all that was left during
Jesus’ time was Judah, and the Davidic line was unbroken all the way to Jesus.

Am I making sense? Verse 16 just reads weird to me, only thing I can think of, is
that it might be some idiom that had an abstract meaning, but still can be taken
literally, and still be true.

The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) used the word
παρθένος (parthenos)—clearly
meaning virgin—about 150 years before Christ, so this indicates that the Jews
understood it to predict a virgin birth (note that we have a modern word based on
this meaning, parthenogenesis—as we wrote in
Was the Virgin Birth non-miraculous?,
naturalistic parthenogenesis is no parallel to the miraculous conception of Jesus).
And Matthew applied this prediction to Jesus’ birth. But how does a birth
700 years after Ahaz constitute a sign to Ahaz that the kings who threatened to
oppose him would be destroyed?

Some think that verses
14–15 are about Jesus, and verse 16 is about Isaiah’s son Shear-Jashub.
This takes care of the immediate sign—Isaiah is saying that before his young
son knows enough to choose between good and evil, the two kings will be destroyed.

Some think that Isaiah is prophesying about a child who will be born in the near
future. Some propose Hezekiah, but he would have already been born at the time of
the prophecy. Some think it’s Isaiah’s son Maher-shalal-hash-baz, who
is born in Chapter 8. But the word translated ‘virgin’ would definitely
not be used for a woman who has already had children, and Maher-shalal-hash-baz
means something quite different from Emmanuel. There is no clear candidate for a
contemporary ‘Emmanuel’, so if we go that route, we would have to postulate
an unknown fulfillment, and it would be quite unlike Scripture to cite a prophecy
and not its fulfillment.

“The context of this verse is that an alliance was threatening the idolatrous
king Ahaz. Not only was he in danger, but the house of David was threatened with
extinction. Therefore, Isaiah, addressing the house of David (as shown by the plural
form of ‘you’ in the original Hebrew of
v.13), stated that a sign to them would be a virgin conceiving. To comfort
Ahaz, Isaiah prophesied that before a boy (Isaiah’s son, Shear-Jashub who
was present,
v. 3) would reach the age of knowing right from wrong, the alliance would
be destroyed (vv.
15–17). It is important to recognize that the passage contains a double
reference, so there is a difference between the prophecies to Ahaz alone (indicated
by the singular form of ‘you’ in the Hebrew—atahאתה) and the house of David
as a whole (indicated by the plural form—lachemלכם).”

In principle, there wouldn’t be a problem with a contemporary fulfillment,
with Matthew using the prophecy typologically to refer to Christ, much as he uses
“out of Egypt I called my son” to refer to Christ (Matthew 2:15), even though in its original context it clearly
refers to the nation of Israel at the time of the Exodus (Hosea 11:1). But I don’t see any clear contemporary
Emmanuel fulfillment, so I prefer the explanation that the virgin birth predicted
is specifically Jesus, and that Shear-Jashub is the immediate ‘sign’.

Sincerely,

Lita Cosner

S.T. from Croatia writes:

Well I searched the internet for a while and I don’t get one thing …
how can Jesus be descended of David if Mary was a virgin … thus had no intercourse
with Joseph which is descendant of David.

The thousands of fully searchable articles on this site are accessed daily by thousands of people. If even a fraction of those thousands of people gave a small amount regularly, we could dramatically increase our outreach! Support this site